About Me

Gretchen Schuldt is a writer, fiscal policy analyst, former reporter, current editor of milwaukeerising.net/wordpress and co-chair of Citizens Allied for Sane Highways, a coalition opposing freeway expansion in Milwaukee.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Seth at In Effect nailed it -- County Exec Scott Walker bet on beating the union and lost. Seth is likely absolutely right that county officials did not want to testify under oath. It was clear that the potential layoffs were the club the Walker Administration and county supervisors wanted to use to beat the union into submission. They were pretty open about that.

It is also entirely conceivable that Walker did not want the errors made by his administration in calculating costs and relying on unreliable consultants to get the attention that public testimony would bring. Walker thought he would have an easy knockout in the 15th round. Instead, he is flat on his back on the mat, and the boot of AFSCME District Council 48 is planted hard -- with spikes -- on his chest.

Gov. Doyle got a $300 fine from the State Ethics Board for buying, at face value, $252 worth of football tickets from a lobbyist. I guess that passes for news during a holiday week.

Yet nobody raised an eyebrow when road building execs made substantial donations to the gov's campaign fund while attending a fundraiser held by a top Department of Transportation official during a period when the firms were negotiating an $8 million deal with that very Department of Transportation. (OK, an eyebrow was raised about the fundraiser, but not about it being held during those negotiations. That should have been at least a double-eyebrow-raiser.)

There was that one, brief, shining moment when it seemed possible the concealed carry wackos would go somewhere else.

After all, Doyle was re-elected, right? The Dems took the Senate, right? No way would the concealed carry crowd try in this state at this time.

But then that short-lived hope was crushed like a rose under a city salt truck. Their shrill voices nag at us about our local Milwaukee and Wisconsin politics all the way from Bellevue, Wash.

BELLEVUE, WA – Anti-gun Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett should financially reimburse armed robbery victims who have been left unable to defend themselves, thanks to the policies of these two politicians, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

In case you didn't quite get who CCRKBA (Pronounced "Crackba"?) holds responsible for thwarting its demand for concealed carry, here's another clue:

“When armed outlaws are not afraid to impersonate police officers,” (Crackba Executive Director Joe) Waldron observed, “and can simply stop someone at gunpoint on a public street to take their money, you know the philosophy that created this mess is morally bankrupt to its core. And that moral bankruptcy rests in the offices of Mayor Barrett and Gov. Doyle.” (Emphasis added)

The other robbery, involving two apparent juveniles who drew handguns on the clerk at a Radio Shack last week, was just as brazen, Waldron said.

One more time...

“Teenage thugs and bogus cops can carry guns,” Waldron said, “but not the law-abiding citizens of Wisconsin, and we can thank Jim Doyle and Tom Barrett for that.

And, then, finally, this:

“The blame for this kind of crime lies in the governor’s office, and among the ranks of Democrats in the House and Senate who failed their responsibility to public safety by not overturning Doyle’s veto,” Waldron said. “And because we know who to blame, we know who should be held financially liable for every penny that is stolen from every shopkeeper and every citizen in Wisconsin. It’s time for Doyle and Barrett to dig into their pockets and put their money where their mouths were.”

So Crackba Joe knows enough about Wisconsin to know the names of the governor and the mayor of the largest city, but then refers to the Assembly as the House and gives himself away as the total hack carpetbagger that he is. Stay away, Joe. Let Wisconsin be Wisconsin.

Wisconsin does a lousy job when it comes to equitable distribution of educational funding, shortchanging districts with large shares of poor students and doing even worse things to districts that have high minority student enrollments.

Wisconsin state and local governments pump $351 per student more into the wealthiest districts than into poorest ones, according to The Education Trust; the gap in funding between the whitest districts and those with the most minority students is a whopping $1,043 per student. Those gaps are greater if you factor in the additional costs of education children in poverty to a standard similar to wealthier children.

Here is something from the Trust for the governor to think about as he prepares his budget.

Once states assume more responsibility for education funding, they should target funds to help educate lowincome children. In Massachusetts, for example, local taxes account for a majority of public schools’ revenue, but statefunding is highly targeted, which allows the state to do more to address funding equity than some other states.

Wisconsin, in contrast, actually allocates a majority of all public education revenue at the state level, but still maintains funding gaps that disadvantage both high-poverty and high minoritydistricts.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

It is probably in your best interest to know what and how much toxic crap is being spewed into the air by local industry, but tough luck: the Bush administration has decided it is in the best interest of corporations for you not to know. It is changing the rules for the Toxic Release Inventory to allow companies to do less reporting. According to the Christian Science Monitor:

Under current TRI rules, companies have to report emissions of any toxic chemical that exceed 500 pounds in a year. Under the new rules, facilities could fill out a simpler form that omits reporting the amount of toxic chemicals if they created less than 5,000 pounds of it in a year and released no more than 2,000 pounds of it into the environment.

The rule change is supposed to benefit small businesses. The BizTimes Daily, for example, reports that

Under the previous rules, a neighborhood auto-repair shop was required to fill out the same set of forms as a large oil refinery, the NFIB said. A 2005 Small Business Administration (SBA) report found that the smallest firms pay nearly 1.5 times as much per employee as large firms to comply with federal regulations.rule change is supposed to benefit small businesses.

The rules, though, will help huge corporations hide the damage they are doing to the creatures who are unfortunate enough to be required to breathe. The Christian Science Monitor again:

But one largely hidden element of the rule change is that big companies are among the largest beneficiaries, says Tom Natan, of the National Environmental Trust, a Washington environmental group.

"The idea that this change is meant to benefit small independent business is just not true," he says. "When they first issued the proposal last year, EPA was saying it's mom and pop businesses this will help, but it turns out it's really General Motors, Sunoco, and companies like that."

While thousands of facilities will see major reductions in their paperwork, Dr. Natan is most concerned about the 3,600 facilities, about 15 percent of the total, that his analysis shows will no longer have to report any emissions details at all. Many such facilities, which emit thousands of pounds of toxins, are operated by some of the nation's largest companies.

An Ashland Distribution Co. facility, located in Birmingham, Ala., a division of the Fortune 500 giant Ashland Inc., released seven toxic chemicals totaling 4,405 pounds in 2004, according to the most recent TRI data. But because each chemical is below the new 2,000-pound threshold, the facility may no longer have to report any data on amounts and types of releases, Natan says. It also leaves room for emissions to rise without data being made public, he adds.

This rule change may lead to a fight with the new Democratically-controlled Congress. Let's hope so.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Mayor Tom Barrett says he wants a new county sales tax, according to the JS, that could be shared among county parks; county buses; city police, fire and public health services; and possibly suburban safety services.

Barrett first made the proposal last summer, and prefers it to an alternative proposal for a 0.5% thee-county sales tax to support transit.

That's what he says, anyway.

Right now, his sales tax proposal sure does not seem to be a top concern for him -- the issue does not rate a single word on the city's legislative agenda for the upcoming session, even though a new sales tax would require state approval.

It may be that neither proposal stands a chance of being adopted, but both are surely doomed if Barrett opposes the three-county tax, but his own proposal doesn't rank among his Administration's legislative priorities.

Yesterday, in a swift and somewhat farcical conclusion to the controversy, the government withdrew the subpoena and announced that the document had been declassified (pdf).

The use of a subpoena was not intended as a threat, a government attorney wrote to the court, but was issued in response to a "request" from the ACLU, so that the organization would not have to voluntarily surrender the document without "due process":

"The Government issued the subpoena based on [...] what it believed to be the ACLU's request for a subpoena in lieu of voluntarily returning the then-classified document."

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has decided that building a 321-mile petroleum pipeline from Superior to Delevan will not have a significant environmental impact. No need for a detailed study, the agency said.

What a crock. How can the DNR expect a reasonable person to even begin to believe that? It's not just the pipeline with its potential for devastating leaks that can cause a great deal of environmental harm, but also the construction and maintenance activities that will be part of the pipeline under the best of circumstances. C'mon, DNR, do it right. Do the full study.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Government officials say President Bush wants to increase overall military strength by about 70,000 troops. Where would they come from in the first place? And where would their replacements come from, as they are either killed, wounded, or discharged? "Be All You Can Be with Crappy Equipment" would not seem to be a great recruiting slogan.

Would Bush consider paying for the new troops more important than preserving his tax breaks for the rich or would he just let the deficit grow and grow until the country is destroyed through financial mismanagement while troops are fighting and dying overseas to protect it from enemies we have helped create?

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Anti-affirmative action figurehead Ward Connerly is in Madison this evening to testify before the Legislative Council Special Committee on Affirmative Action Policies. Connerly, of California, has pushed anti-affirmative action laws and referendums all over the country.

The very, very, very conservative State Sen. Glenn Grothman is chairing the Wisconsin legislative committee, so it is safe to assume it will not entertain a particularly balanced discussion on the issue.

State Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) is not happy that Connerly is coming to town.

"To pretend that this Committee is going to take an unbiased look at the affirmative action policies relating to state contracting and education and come to some fair and equitable resolution is a total farce,”she said in a news release. “The invitation extended to Mr. Connerly by Sen. Grothman gives us a clear indication of the direction of this Committee.”

Rep. Grigsby further noted, “This is not a public hearing, and only invited speakers will be allowed to address the Committee. It is unfortunate that Senator Grothman is more interested in hearing the views of a hired gun from California than from the citizens of Wisconsin.”

Rep. Grigsby went on to say, “I am confident that students and other members of the public who could be harmed by the measures proposed by Mr. Connerly will attend this hearing in great numbers. I know they will want to demonstrate their opposition to the threat this could pose for equality in the marketplace and in the academic institutions of higher learning.”

Grigsby said she and other community leaders in Milwaukee will be holding their own affirmative action hearing here.

The Bushies spend so much time praising freedom and liberty that it's easy to forget how much that anti-constitution crowd wants to shrink them. Their attitude is absolutely anti-marketplace of ideas.

This time around the Justice Department is trying to use a subpeona to force the ACLU to turn over all copies of a classified document that it has in its possession. Legal experts say it is the first time a subpoena has been used in an attempt to seize leaked documents.

The ACLU says that the 3 1/2 -page document contains no information that should be classified and that the memo is only "mildly embarrassing" to the government....

In a motion filed in federal court, the ACLU called the subpoena an "unprecedented abuse" of the government's grand-jury powers that violates the First Amendment and is aimed at suppressing information rather than investigating a crime.

The civil liberties group -- which has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's terrorism and detainee policies -- said it is prohibited from disclosing the contents of the document. But it described the document as "nothing more than a policy, promulgated in December 2005, that has nothing to do with national defense."

"No official secrets act has yet been enacted into law, and the grand jury's subpoena power cannot be employed to create one," the ACLU wrote in its brief, which was filed with U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff.

First Amendment advocates and experts in national security law said the subpoena represents a dramatic bid by the government to punish or intimidate media organizations and advocacy groups that attempt to publicize government policies and actions.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the subpoena "disturbing," saying it would be easy for the government to attempt a similar move against a news outlet that had obtained a sensitive document as part of its investigative work.

"It shows me a pattern of aggressiveness to retrieve information that has escaped from the bubble," Dalglish said. "It's intimidation. It's trying to use all sorts of different methods at their disposal to stop proliferation of leaks from the federal government and to prevent public oversight of the executive branch."

The state Department of Administration's chief legal counsel has a really scary interpretation of the Open Records Law, one that reminds me a lot of the Bush Administration's interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act: it should not stop one from keeping public records away from the public.

Remember Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, and how he wouldn't let anyone even know who was on it? DOA Chief Legal Counsel John Rothschild has a similar view of open government -- he thinks it should be closed. He has decreed that any budget document prepared by DOA or the governor's staff need not be released to the public. His loopy reasoning? Making the records public may “jeopardize the candor and complete evaluation of the state’s finances in the preparation of the budget for the governor.”

I guess that we, the people that actually pay the bills, aren't entitled to that kind of candor. Doesn't that just make you wonder what they aren't telling us?

There absolutely is a need for confidentiality in certain aspects of budget preparation, but this isn't one of them. Rothschild's sweeping denial was in response to a request for records related to the Department of Transportation's delay in submitting its 2007-09 budget request. The event is over, and does not bear on Gov. Doyle's ongoing budget preparations. There is simply no reason to deny release of all those records.

This is a dangerous precedent, one that drips with arrogance and disdain for the public's right to know.

Jim Doyle is just starting his second term. We will have to see if Rothschild's high-handedness is an aberration or whether part of Doyle's legacy will be the imperial governorship.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Reuters reports that a bill introduced in Texas would allow the blind to hunt by using laser sights (I'm not a hunter and am not clear on how that would work and have the assistance of a person who can see.

"A blind person can shoot a rifle by mounting an offset pistol scope on the side of the rifle instead of on top," said Terry Erwin, the Austin-based Hunter Education Coordinator with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department."This allows their companion behind them to peer over their shoulder and help them sight it, but the blind person can pull the trigger," he told Reuters.

The usually level-headed Ald. Mike D'Amato, co-sponsor of an ordinance change that would allow billboards to change their messages every six seconds, said the signs could be beneficial because they "can be of assistance to the public, flashing up Amber alerts and other crime information."

So Amber alerts can't be shown under the current ordinance that allows message changes no more than once a minute? C'mon, Mike.

D'Amato's proposed ordinance, which he co-sponsored with Ald. T. Anthony Zielinski, did not pass, but the council did OK 30-second message changes.No word yet on whether that will be enough time for Amber alerts.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

The New York Times (registration required) featured a stunning story this morning about another multi-billion dollar Homeland Security security screw-up -- this time a Coast Guard fleet-building program that has resulted in unsafe ships and has "compromised the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission....The service has been forced to cut back on patrols and, at times, ignore tips from other federal agencies about drug smugglers. The difficulties will only grow more acute in the next few years as old boats fail and replacements are not ready."

The Coast Guard's modernization program turned into a fleet fiasco after program management was turned over to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, two large military contractors.

My question is this: why does the Coast Guard think dumping thousands of lead bullets into the Great Lakes during live fire exercises will keep us safer when its most fundamental equipment -- its fleet -- is screwed up? And why should we trust one major Homeland Security contractor, CH2M Hill, when it assures us thousands of bullets won't harm the lakes' water quality when Homeland Security has proved itself so inept and/or corrupt in the contracting process?

The mayor's race got under way Friday with the Milwaukee Business Journal's look at folks who might run agains incumbent Mayor Tom Barrett. The Biz J's likely suspects are US Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin), Sheriff David Clarke (D-Not Really), Common Council President Willie Hines, State Rep. Pedro Colon (D-Milwaukee), State Secretary of Administration Michael Morgan; Jeanette Mitchell, executive director of the Cardinal Stritch University Leadership Center; Thelma Sias, vice president of public affairs for Wisconsin Energy Corp.; Antonio Rliey, executive director of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority; Milwaukee attorney Greg Wesley; Third District Ald. Michael D'Amato; and attorney Cory Nettles.

The Biz Journal doesn't identify the "political observers" it consulted for its story, although the frequently-quoted-lately-for-no-discernable-reason Einar Tangen is clearly among them. It would be nice to know who is floating the names and why these particular names are being floated. Some seem just loopy. Jeanette Mitchell? Thelma Sias? Greg Wesley? No way. Mitchell and Sias won't run, and Wesley can't win. He would have to spend way too much time explaining his role as a finance team member on former Mayor Marvin Pratt's campaign when there were so many questions about that campaign's finances.

The most likely to run is D'Amato, who is no Barrett fan. D'Amato also is said to have his eye on the county executive's office.

So far though, it is a mayor's race with only one candidate, if an anonymous staffer can be believed: Tom Barrett.

Friday, December 08, 2006

The best business story of the week comes from Monday's New York Times (registration required). It's about how Wal-Mart is trying to be nicer to the employees for whom it recently capped wages, made schedules more difficult, and decided that having a sick child wasn't a good reason to miss work.

The story says:

Wal-Mart managers at 4,000 stores will meet with 10 rank-and-file workers every week and extend an additional 10 percent discount on a single item during the holidays to all its employees, beyond the normal 10 percent employee discount.

Overwhelming generosity, ain'a? And there's more!

The program includes several new perks "as a way of saying thank you" to workers, like a special polos shirt after 20 years of service and a "premium holiday," when Wal-Mart pays a portion of health insurance premiums for covered employees.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

The tragedy at the Falk Corp. will be the ultimate pass / fail test of Mayor Tom Barrett's administration. This isn't one of those issues, like crime, where the mayor's degree of responsibility is not so easily defined, nor is it the sort of abstract disagreement over language (is the city in 'crisis'?) that has often passed for controversy in Barrett's first term thus far.

The Falk explosion and its many, many repercussions for the workers, the company, the city and the region are issues on which Barrett should be the public leader.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

That reek is the lame explanation provided by Republican staffer John O'Brien for for why he copied Democratic campaign plans earlier this year. O'Brien, an aide to State Sen. Dan Kapanke, (R-La Crosse), said he found the campaign plan in a binder on a microwave cart.

He said he did not notice until after he rifled through it that the name and title of Matt Swentofske, director of the state Democratic Senate Committee, were duly noted on the title page. What a surprise for a document like that to list the name of the owner where the name of the owner is very likely to be listed!

Good citizen O'Brien, so very dutifully concerned that the campaign document he found showed evidence of illegal coordination between the committee and independent advocacy groups, copied it and turned it over to -- theElections Board? Nah. The State Ethics Board? Nah.The district attorney's or the US attorney's office? No. Why would anyone concerned with illegal activity contact the DA or the US attorney?

O'Brien gave the copy to the top aide to Sen. Majority Leader Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center). Why didn't O'Brien turn over the orginal book, if he was truly concerned about illegal activity? We don't know. O'Brien doesn't say. Guess he didn't understand that law enforcment folks generally prefer original evidence, not copies made by someone with a vested interest in the case.

Schultz' aide promptly turned the copy over to a Republican campaign committee. The campaign committee said the documents had been found on a capitol copier -- a largish hint that maybe the Dems were illegally using state resources to pay for campaign material.

Concerned citizen O'Brien did not step forward to correct the record -- the records were found on a microwave cart, and there was no evidence they had been copied.

The Republicans then sat on the copied plans for almost five months -- until just a few weeks before the November election -- before they alleged illegal coordination. The State Elections Board no violations of the law.

O'Brien's spate of good citizen feelings must have taken a vacation during those five months. He gives no indication that he followed on his concerns about illegal activity or asked a single question about the status of the issue.

O'Brien also says that Kapanke didn't know anything about his making the copy until Dec. 1. Well, I guess that is at least as believable as the rest of O'Brien's stinky explanation.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Congratulations to you, Private Industry Council. The most recent board agenda posted on your web site is one year old! While having a web site that out of date might be embarrassing to most public agencies, it's quite timely when compared to your own Job Center Network Committee page -- the most recent documents there date back to 2002.

Thanks for posting a meeting date list for this year, but I'm not sure that comes close to keeping the public informed about where these millions of dollars are going.

And your youth employment page? Wow, there is an entire four employers offering jobs listed there. The employers haven't changed for several weeks now, so I'm wondering about your efforts to keep even this key page up-to-date. Below is the entire youth job listing, as presented by the PIC. Another reason more city officials are questioning the performance of this agency.

The JS reports today that Alberta Darling is going to give up her more than $45,000 in sick pay. Most lawmakers don't claim sick days, and the accumulated sick leave can be used to buy health insurance when the legislators leave office.

"It's not right, so I'm not going to be taking it," she said.

What the JS doesn't mention, but probably should have: State Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee), the leading opponent of the current state of the legislative sick leave benefit, is looking to challenge Darling for her seat in 2008. If Darling didn't return the money, Wasserman would have been able to use that against her in the campaign. He still may able to draw attention to how long it took her to return the money, but the issue loses a lot of its oomph once that cash is back in the state's hands.

Monday, December 04, 2006

The House is expected to vote on a bill tomorrow that would protect non-profit athletic organizations from lawsuits stemming from the organizations' own negligence if that negligence is related to "the passage, adoption, or failure to adopt rules of play for athletic competitions and practices."

Wow, what a bad idea, and soon-to-be former Congressman Mark Green is a co-sponsor. Public Citizen put the issue in perspective:

At a recent Wisconsin high school swim meet, a student became quadriplegic after diving into a pool that was not deep enough. The athletic association's standards for pool depth were not up to national standards. Because the student filed a claim against the association, it changed its standards to comply with the National Federation of State High School Associations. If this bill passed, the association would be completely off the hook.

The reasoning behind the measure is suspect to say the least.

Sport involves intense physical activity. It also involves a certain element of danger. Rule making is anticipatory, and hence a difficult balancing act. Rules committee members face a constant struggle to balance the tradeoffs of limiting risk and preserving the key elements and sound traditions of the sport. Rules makers must draw unambiguous lines; they do not have the luxury of self-protective vagueness. Given the large number of participants and the risks inherent in sport, injuries cannot be avoided. By deciding to partake in competition, athletes assume such risks. Allowing lawsuits based merely on the good faith development of the rules is wrong and unfair.

This immunity, though, would extend to organizations that did not engage in "good faith development of the rules." It would apply to organizations that demonstrated incompetence, ill intent or indifference. It puts athletes unnecessarily at risk and blocks the fundamental right of citizens to seek redress in a court of law. Let's not do it.

Friday, December 01, 2006

She ordered the five-day subscription back in September, and has been a dissatisfied customer ever since. She absolutely cannot get the great minds in the JS circulation department to understand that five days means five days and those days are Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

The paper regularly ends up on her doorstep on Saturdays and Sundays. Sometimes the paper is not delivered on the days she does want it.

If she's not home on the weekend, which is sometimes the case, the paper sits on her front step, a beacon to bad guys who might interpret it as an invitation to come on inside and help themselves to her stuff.

She's called the circulation department at least 10 times and is on a first-name basis with one of the employees there. Her newspaper woes are now a regular topic of family conversation: in what creative ways has the JS screwed up such a simple request this time?

We very likely will have to find something else to talk about. She's a little tired of being put at risk by the JS' inability to understand the her order.

The paper is real close to losing another subscriber it really can't afford to lose.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist announced yesterday that he will not run for president in 2008. A reasonable person could conclude that Frist decided he didn't have a chance of election after looking at his legal / political woes. As the Washington Post reports:

But Frist began to lose some of that aura after a series of politically damaging events, including an on-going investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into allegations of insider trading in his sale of shares in HCA Inc., a hospital chain founded by his father and his brother. The sale was completed just weeks before the company issued an earnings estimate that fell short of analysts' expectations, causing a drop in HCA's stock price.

Frist has also faced questions about his role on the board of a charitable foundation that paid consulting fees to some of his close political allies.

Last year, Frist injected himself into the legislative drama over Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged and bedridden Florida woman who died after her husband decided to have her feeding tube removed, despite congressional efforts to reverse his decision.

After viewing a videotape of the woman, Frist, a surgeon, publicly questioned the diagnosis that said Schiavo would never recover. That action was widely viewed as a sop to religious conservatives. An autopsy later proved Frist wrong.

Also, Frist has been drawn into caustic confrontations with Senate Democrats since being elevated to majority leader in 2002, reinforcing the view of him as an intense partisan. Although friends and colleagues say he never violated his principles, they note that the job of majority leader obscured what they say is Frist's true character. Moreover, he was politically weakened when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections earlier this month.

But, wait! It wasn't his own screw-ups that led Frist to conclude that the woodpeckers have done some real damage to whatever presidential timber he ever was. No, it was the Bible that led the way to Frist's enlightenment:

"In the Bible, God tells us for everything there is a season, and for me, for now, this season of being an elected official has come to a close," he said in a written statement. "I do not intend to run for president in 2008."

The very same Republicans who wanted to impose a property tax freeze now want to tap into local property taxes to pay for the tax-and-spend-really-foolishly Department of Transportation's "Pave Wisconsin" program, according to the JS.

Rep. Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington) developed a report that noted that road projects drive up property values, creating a larger tax base for local governments. Some of that tax revenue should be used to pay for the roads.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Gotta love what the JS thinks is important. A story about the Milwaukee 7's web site -- a web sitefor God's sake -- got played on the front page, while news of the central city's continued slide into deeper poverty was pushed into the back business pages.

Both stories were written by John Schmid.

The latter story even included a comment by State Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield) about Milwaukee's problems. We're sure that the the next time the JS business section runs a story about Waukesha County, a central city Milwaukee legislator will be contacted for a quote.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

The JS is flat out wrong on this one. The gap that occurs when total budget requests exceed projected revenues is not a deficit. Period.

As a matter of fact, someone show me the last time budget requests did not exceed expected revenues. I'll wait, probably forever. Budget requests always need to be weighed and whittled, whether at the federal, state, or local levels of government.

But I used to be in the news biz and now I'm in the budget biz and it boils down to this: the JS was wrong to suggest that budget requests = defiticts, and was doubly wrong to let Republicans use budget requests to hammer Gov. Doyle about deficits.

Here's how it usually works in real life. Departments submit funding requests to a central budget office. If it works right, the budget requests outline what department managers think they need to provide services the following years. (If it doesn't work right, department managers use budget request to try to expand their little empires or maybe get some really fancy things they don't need, but in those cases the managers should be canned and that's the end of that.)

Department managers can use budget requests to propose new programs, to suggest alternate ways of providing services, or simply to estimate what it will cost next year to maintain this year's services. This is a good thing. It allows decision-makers to look at the overall requests and set priorities. How much does the Department of Natural Resources say it needs to maintain service levels? What about the Department of Workforce Development? Does DWD have a new system of doing something that will save $1 million that can then be shifted to DNR to save X number of ranger jobs? Or does DWD need to keep that money to operate a new jobs training program in Ashland?

The decision-makers take the budget requests, look at anticipated revenues and, working with department managers and others, massage and whack and adjust the requests so the resulting total budget matches the total anticipated revenue.

Budget requests give a big picture. They are competitive, and not everyone will get everything asked for. It's why there is a budget process, and why no one with five minutes' experience or half an ounce of common sense would suggest that budget requests being greater than anticipated revenue somehow means there is a deficit.

And I know that most reporters and editors at the JS know better. So I wonder why....

Oh, my. The WisDOT gang thinks it can run over the governor's budget folks.

WisDOT Secretary Frank "Miller Park roof" Busalacchi has done a great job blowing ignoring fiscal limits on transportation projects so far (yes, projected $1.7 billion in overruns on just 27 projects is not a good thing), so he must figure he can just roll over and crush Secretary of Administration Stephen Bablitch under the weight of road builder influence.

The Department of Administration told most departments to keep their budget requests flat, Bablitch said in a letter released this week.

The budget instructions directed GPR (general purpose revenue, or regular ol' tax money) agencies to limit budget requests to 100 percent of their fiscal year 2006-07 adjusted base year budgets for both fiscal year 2007-08 and fiscal year 2008-09 ... Budget requests for segregated revenue-funded state operations administrative appropriations of the Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources and Lottery were also subject to this directive. Most agencies complied with this directive.

"Most agencies" did not include WisDOT. The most mad-spending agency requested a $155.4 million boost for FY08, and a $70.3 million boost for FY09. That is a 9.2% increase over the two years.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has begun charging for access to archived stories. The fee schedule:

Single Article: $2.95 per article

3 Pack: $6.95, one week duration (more than 20% discount!)

10 Pack: $21.95, one month duration (25% discount!)

25 Pack: $49.95, one month duration (30% discount!)

40 Pack: $79.95, one month duration

500 Pack: $995, one year duration

1,000 Pack: $1,995, one year duration

If you live in the City of Milwaukee, though, and you have a Milwaukee Public Library Card, you still have online access to JS clips -- through the library. You pay for the service through your property taxes, but there is no additional charge. Click here and then go to "Research Resources." The Milwaukee Public Library -- just one more reason to live in the city.

President Bush doesn't actually want to talk to or touch any average Vietnames folks while he's in their country, according to news reports originating in the New York Times.

On Saturday, Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, conceded that the president had not come into direct contact with ordinary Vietnamese, but said that they connected anyway.

"If you'd been part of the president's motorcade as we've shuttled back and forth," he said, reporters would have seen that "the president has been doing a lot of waving and getting a lot of waving and smiles."

The Vietnamese should not feel bad. It's just like that here in the United States, too, only Bush doesn't get so many smiles or waves anymore.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation's new budget request demonstrates, once again, that the spend-it-all-even-if-we-don't-have-it merry band of pranksters at WisDOT don't quite understand the concepts of restraint, oil dependency, aging population, or global warming.

$200 million for Milwaukee freeway projects and a lousy $601,000 statewide boost for aids to elederly and disabled transportation services? Ya gotta be kidding.

Friday, November 17, 2006

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Also Tuesday, the Senate approved by unanimous voice vote a move by Susan Collins, R-Maine, to keep alive an oversight office in Iraq responsible for exposing waste in U.S. efforts for rebuilding Iraq. The special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction tracks spending in the multibillion-dollar effort to rebuild Iraq, a process moving slowly because of corruption and overcharging as well as wartime violence.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., had moved to shut down the agency by October as Congress passed the annual defense policy bill.

Hunter's strong-arm move caught many lawmakers by surprise and prompted immediate calls for its reversal. The inspector general's work has resulted in four criminal convictions and, most recently, evidence that a Halliburton subsidiary exploited federal regulations to hide details on its contract performance.

Monday, November 13, 2006

What the hell has Tom Barrett and the city done to be so completely trashed by the Public Policy Forum in its economic development report? First the Forum wrote up a hatchet job, then the JS and reporter John Schmid took the bloody weapon and took a few of its own swings at the mayor in a Sunday story that made Barrett and Department of City Development Commissioner Rocky Marcoux look like a couple of dolts.

Lots of "he said, he said" between Rocky and Brian Reilly, a former DCD staffer, and a few jabs at Barrett for interviewing what apparently, in writer John Schmid's view, was in insufficient number of people for the DCD commissioner's job.

The Forum's report is "ready! shoot! aim!" and maybe it hit a bullseye, but on the workforce development issue, shot the entirely wrong target. Was it a total set-up? An e-mail exchange between the city and the PPF does suggest that the Forum did not behave particularly well. More about that later.

This particular report, while it may contain some valuable ideas, spends too much time spanking the city for not being involved in workforce development efforts, which have not been a traditional municipal activity.

Some examples from the report:

In placing this bet, the city has largely neglected expenditures for business and workforce development that aim to bolster personal incomes, create jobs, and grow a skilled labor pool.City leaders also would be right to question whether a continued emphasis on community and real estate development over job and workforce development will deliver desired results in the long term.

Only 1% of expenditures go toward workforce development. Although workforce issues are also the responsibility of other governments such as the Milwaukee Area Technical College and Milwaukee Public Schools, the city could play a much bigger role in ensuring a quality workforce, borrowing from a variety of city workforce development models nationwide...With a shrinking city labor force and the simultaneous “skills mismatch” between good payingjobs and unskilled available workers, it may be time for the city to revisit its 1%commitment to workforce development.

The Public Policy Forum seems to think property tax dollars should be diverted from police and libraries and fire departments and street repairs and invested in workforce development efforts instead. There's nothing wrong with that, except workforce development is what the Private Industry Council and the State Department of Workforce Development are supposed to do. The Forum's entire examination of the job the PIC does consists of this:

The city of Milwaukee should use its leadership position to partner with local employers,MATC, MPS, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), Milwaukee County Private Industry Council, and other workforce development leaders to gain consensus on how the city could use its resource capacity to train workers for careers in local industries.

It probably would be very, very worthwhile for the Forum or the JS to poke around the PIC for a while. Are employers any happier with that agency than they are with the city? Key aldermen have stated publicly that they would like to turn some of the PIC's work over to the city because the city can do it better. Why do they believe that? Why didn't the Public Policy Forum ask?

Amazingly, the Public Policy Forum's omission of other agencies' workforce and economic development efforts was deliberate, according to the report: Only spending that filtered through the city of Milwaukee was included in the study. Grants or incentives from state or federal sources given directly to Milwaukee businesses and non-profits were not included.

Guess that's why the State Department of Workforce Development -- yes, an entire department devoted to what the Forum wants the city to take up with its spare change -- doesn't even rate a mention.Excluding a large part of the known world sure makes the report writer's job easier. The city can be blamed for everything! Let's take transit. Under the Forum's study criteria, the county doesn't exist and transit is important to the city, so the declining transit system is the city's fault and the city should pay to fix it! Same with courts, parks, and on and on and on.

And so did the Public Policy Forum play fair with city officials in all of this? The following is an exchange that took place between city officials and the report's main author, Ryan Horton.

Deputy DCD Commissioner Martha Brown emailed Horton on Oct. 11:

Hi, Ryan -- I note that the latest PPF newsletter has a "tease" on the ED study.I believe you were going to share the draft with us-- sounds like it may be time to set that up.Please let me know when you'd like to get together.

Martha

Horton responded the next day:

Absolutely.We are still working on the initial draft. Does the last week in October or first week in November work for you?

The dialogue continued:

From: Brown, Martha

Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:16 PM

To: Ryan Horton

Subject: RE: ED study

Hi, Ryan --I'll be out of the office on Friday, November 3,and Monday, Nov. 6 is already packed with meetings.But other than those two days, I'm sure we can get something on the calendar.Ideally, we'd get the draft in advance and I'd be able to circulate it and gather a few folks around the table to talk with you about anything they read that they feel needs discussion.

Our best course would be to decide on a time so I can get it on calendars -- would some time the afternoon of Thursday, November 9th work for you?

***

From: Ryan Horton

Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:33 PM

To: Brown, Martha

Subject: RE: ED study

Hi Martha,I just want to confirm our Thursday meeting at 3pm.I assume we will be meeting at the same location - 2nd floor, DCD.Myself, Jeff Browne and our communications director, Jerry Slaske will all be in attendance.Whom can we expect from the city?We have a phone call into Pat Curley inviting a representative from the Mayors office.The official release for the report will be next Monday (Nov. 13th).I will hand out draft copies of the report at our meeting on Thursday.See you then - Ryan

***

From: Brown, Martha

Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:08 PM

To: Ryan Horton

Cc: Patrick Curley;

Subject: RE: ED study

Ryan -- We'll be meeting in the Commissioner's Conference Room, 2nd floor, 809 N. Broadway (same room in which we met the last time).If you are intending to release a report on Nov. 13th, it would be very helpful to get a copy in advance of the meeting Nov. 9.As I mentioned earlier, it's my hope to be able to circulate the draft in advance of the meeting, because if there are errors or misinterpretations in the draft, we'd like to be helpful in catching those before you go to print.

The following DCD folks are confirmed to attend:Jim Scherer, Dave Latona (Milwaukee Economic Development Corp.), Joel Brennan, myself.Unfortunately, Rocky isn't able to be there.I've also invited Pat Walsh, but haven't yet heard from him.

Thanx--

Martha

***

From: Ryan Horton

To: Brown, Martha

Sent: Tue Nov 07 11:49:36 2006

Subject: RE: ED study

Martha, I spoke with Jeff about your request to see the document in advance of our Thursday meeting.Because the report is still in draft form, we do not feel comfortable sharing it prior to Thursday.Changes in language are still being made.As always, we need to retain our independence when we release any Forum report.At the end of the day, if there are errors or misinterpretations, it's our fault.That said, we look forward to reviewing the findings and policy options with you and your staff on Thursday.Thank you again for all your cooperation over the past year.Ryan

What Horton meant to say is that the report could not be shared with the city -- the Forum was fine with handing it over to the JS. Patrick Curley, Barrett's chief of staff, was not a happy camper when he found out what was going on.

From: Patrick Curley

Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:42 PM

Cc: Brown, Martha; Eileen Force

Subject: ED Study and Press

This email you sent to Martha would have a whole more credibility if John Schmid hadn't called and asked for comment. Specifically, he asked, "What's your reaction to the Public Policy Forum's Economic Development Study?" I replied, "don't have it, haven't seen it." Obviously, he has had it, he's seen it. So, despite the fact that Martha Brown and DCD have cooperated with you over the past year,you and Jeff have no qualms about sandbagging us.

Cooperative endeavors must mean something different to you and yours than to us.

Horton then does what comes naturally -- he blames the reporter. This e-mail is sent on Nov. 8, at 6:43 p.m.

Pat, I understand your frustration and I apologize.We will take up the

issue with John.

(What???!)

Attached is a copy of the report which is embargoed until Sunday, Nov. 12th.This report is not to be forwarded to any other media outlet or those not on this email until after Nov. 12th.

Ryan Horton

Researcher

Public Policy Forum

There is just not much in the study, the JS story, or the e-mails that indicates a good-faith effort to study the city's economic development efforts. It all smacks of an effort to get a report's findings into the newspaper, with the report, its findings, and the way they were handled were all means to that end.

Whatever good is in the report's recommendations -- yup, the city should have an economic development plan -- is mostly lost in the muck the Forum itself has dumped on itself and its effort.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

US Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, still is bobbing around in hot water a few days after New Jersey voters returned him to office. From the Newark Star Ledger:

Federal investigators have resumed their inquiry into a rental deal between U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and a nonprofit agency, issuing new subpoenas in the days after he was elected to a full six-year term, according to a government source.

The subpoenas sought documents related to the more than $300,000 in rent Menendez collected from the North Hudson Community Action Corp. between 1994 and 2003, the source said. It was unclear what records were sought or who was subpoenaed.

Menendez has steadfastly denied wrongdoing, and voters believed him enough or didn't care about the allegations enough to elect him to a full six-year term over Republican Thomas Kean Jr., who tried to paint Menendez as a crook. Crooks? In New Jersey politics? Nahhhh.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Members of a conservative/progressive panel of bloggers at download 2006 (sponsored by One Wisconsin Now and Boots and Sabers) were in surprising sync in their rather skeptical view of the integrity of the Doyle regime. Here is audio of the discussion, including audience input (the audience tilted conservative).

Friday, November 10, 2006

A gentle reminder that all sorts of good talk and discussion abotu the elections can be had tomorrow, Nov. 11, at dowload 2006. The event will feature panel discussions with citizen bloggers representing Boot and Sabers, Folkbum's Rambles and Rants, In Effect, Lakeshore Laments, Milwaukee Rising, One Blog, Right off the Shore, and Wigderson's Library and Pub. It's open to the public.

There's a reason Dale Schultz, the Senate Majority leader under the State Senate Republican rule, didn't seek a new leadership post within his party: he's politically blind. The JS made the shocking disclosure yesterday.

One legislative leader whose party lost seats withdrew from leadership Wednesday, before he was voted out. Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) said he would not seek a leadership role when the 15 GOP senators meet today.

In a statement, Schultz said national issues - and nothing Wisconsin Republicans did or didn't do - caused the defeat of incumbent Republican Sens. Tom Reynolds of West Allis and Dave Zien and Ron Brown, both of Eau Claire.

"What we saw in Senate Republican races here in Wisconsin was a direct result of a Democrat tsunami which swept across the country," Schultz added.

To assert that local candidates are irrelevant in local races is pretty astounding. Yes, national trends had an impact. So did the candidates the Republicans chose to run in Wisconsin.

Did the president of the United States make a rare admission on national television that he had told an untruth?

Or had he merely engaged in a dodge of the sort that is common in politics?

Journalists by nature shy from pinning the "liar" label on any political leader, but President Bush's acknowledgments that he had not been forthcoming about his plans to dump Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have kicked up a fuss at the White House and sparked a debate about the limits of presidential evasion.

Six days before the election, Bush told three wire-service reporters in an interview that Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney were doing "fantastic" jobs.

"You see them staying with you until the end?" asked Terence Hunt of the Associated Press.

"I do," Bush replied.

"So you're expecting Rumsfeld, Secretary Rumsfeld, to stay on the rest of your time here?" asked Steve Holland of Reuters.

"Yes, I am," the president said.

On Wednesday, the day after the election, Bush at a news conference said that "that kind of question, a wise question by a seasoned reporter, is the kind of thing that causes one to either inject major military decisions at the end of a campaign, or not. And I have made the decision that I wasn't going to be talking about hypothetical troop levels or changes in command structure coming down the stretch."

The president added that he had not made a definitive decision because he had not held his "last" conversation with Rumsfeld and had not yet spoken to Robert Gates, his nominee to take over the Pentagon.

Either way, the president lied. There are only two scenarios:

1. The president dumped Rummy post-haste post-election because of the national repudiation of the Administration's war policies and Bush lied when he said it was planned before the election, or

2. Bush planned to dump Rummy before the election and lied about it when asked specific questions by a reporter.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Really, he says, Donald Rumsfeld's resignation had nothing to do with election results. Really! Not a thing! I just told America last week that one of the most despised men in the country had to stay on my team 4 ever because I wanted to alienate the largest number of voters possible to the maximum extent possible just before the election! I wanted the Senate to go Democratic so I could not get another one of those awful judicial appointments through. Stop me before I appoint again!

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Voters were much more interested in the Milwaukee County sheriff's race, in which incumbent David Clarke destroyed Republican opponent Don Holt, than they were in the Milwaukee County district attorney's race, where Assistant DA John Chisholm destroyed independent Lew Wasserman.

Clarke and Holt received a combined total of 297,095 votes, which is 45,182 or 18% more than the combined total of 251,913 votes that Chisholm and Wasserman got, according to the JS. The sheriff's results were based on 99% of returns counted and the DA results were based on 98% of returns counted, but it's unlikely that 1% difference has much impact on the interest gap.

The attorney general's results are a real head banger, but we can always hold out hope for a recount that will show that Kathleen Falk actually won.

Shoot, shoot, shoot on that darned death penalty and darned marriage amendment and those huge margins....ouch.

Steve Kagen won up the 8th Congressional District up north there, John Lehman took the 21st Senate District in Racine County, and it's nice to see the Dems in control of the State Senate and the US House of Representatives.

Now, the question: should Congress investigate the Bush Administration? Absolutely, and in several areas: what the Bushies knew and when they knew it during the run-up to the Iraq war; the corruption and waste in military contracting, Iraq reconstruction, and government procurement; and gross violations of civil rights.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

While we are waiting for local results and celebrating Rick Santorum's crash and burn in Pennsylvania (he may have lost the election, but he won the contest for creepy), here's another reason people are hoping to do better with Democrats. There's no promise of that, since the Dems have been pretty willing accomplices in the shredding of the Constitution, but here's a situation so glaring and nutso that even a the most page-besotted politico will have to pay attention. The Bush administration is arguing that it's not the torture that should be outlawed -- what needs to be outlawed is the victims' rights to talk about it, even to their attorneys. From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON – A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh – but undefined – interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

“Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks,” the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as “terrorist leaders” to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

“Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security,” the government argued in court documents.

“It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al-Qaeda operatives,” it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to “conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct.”

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.

The Transportation Security Administration last week (November 1) put a notice in the Federal Register stating that it has forwarded a new plan for personal information collection to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. The intent is to require people involved in legal disputes to be fingerprinted and subject to a background check before they can gain access to information deemed sensitive by the Department of Homeland Security.

The limits on the collection of information specifically pertain to those seeking access to “sensitive security information” (SSI) to support their cases in federal court. TSA is seeking to conduct criminal history record checks and security threat assessments of those seeking the sensitive but unclassified information in order to strengthen their court cases. TSA argues that SSI includes information that would be detrimental to transportation security if publicly disclosed. Critics on the other hand state that information with little or no bearing on homeland security often gets classified as SSI.

I can't imagine why anyone on Earth would anyone trust the Bush Administration to determine who should or should not have access to the courtroom, which is what this regulation essentially would do. It also contains no provision for appeal, by the way.

A download from the Wisconsin Blog Community on the 2006 Elections -- Featuring panel discussions with citizen bloggers representing Boot and Sabers, Folkbum's Rambles and Rants, In Effect, Lakeshore Laments, Milwaukee Rising, One Blog, Right off the Shore, and Wigderson's Library and Pub.Dialogues on the elections, media coverage, issues and ads.Votes on best and worst campaigns, campaign ads and media coverage.This event is open to the public.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Xoff has posted one of the threats State Sen. Tom Reynolds' good friend Bob Dohnal sent along trying to intimidate folks. Among other things, Dohnal says:

I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years hunting for trophies and have them over my fireplace. I would really like to add the butts of Gretchen Schuldt, Bill Christofferson and Jim McGuigan.

DA has ruled that sayng that Reynolds used campaign funds to heat home is lie. Building Wisconsin's Future has pulled ad and negotiations are underway to figure out how to redo damage. You should get attroney. The cows are coming home and your front yard is going to be full of cowpies pretty quick. As an expereinced reporter you will be under much more scrutiny as you know how to check out stories. Hope the bill does not cost you your house in Story Hill as we will spend any amount to pin your ears back. Wait until the DA comes after the corruption in Tosa as a result of the Sullivan double votes.

Just to remind folks -- the DA's office has decided that the double-voting allegations against Reynolds' challenger Jim Sullivan are....yes...cowpies. And the DA didn't say the ad was a lie. And Building Wisconsin's Future didn't pull it.

And Dohnal can't nail my butt over his fireplace, but he can kiss my....

Now that the DA's office has officially opined that State Sen. Tom Reynolds used campaign funds to pay utilities on his campaign headquarters on a rental property rather than at his home as Reynolds' own campaign filings gives gives reasonable basis to conclude, let's move on to remaining questions about the Reynolds' campaign finance reports:

Why didn't Reynolds declare the value of the use of the rental property HQ as an in-kind donation? The full-time use of a building with heat, gas, and printers or printing presses seems to be of substantial value, and state law requires that candidates declare those kind of donations.

How did Reynolds value his own in-kind donations for printing labor? State law requires that contributions be declared the day they are received. Reynolds declared a $16,883 in-kind contribution on Oct. 23, the last day of the most recent reporting period. Let's assume that, despite the law, Reynolds is declaring his in-kind contribution for the entire period and not for a single day. There were just 56 days during the reporting period, including weekends. If Reynolds' worked on his own stuff eight hours a day, every day, including weekends, he would be billing his campaign $37.69 per hour, or -- on a full-time basis -- more than $78,000 a year. (He has separate entries for utilities, paper, ink, and payments to the postmaster and a mailing service.)

Just who is Kelly Reynolds and why did Tom Reynolds pay her $364 on Sept. 5? Kelly Reynolds' address is listed on Reynolds' campaign report as his home at 9430 W. Schlinger Ave. (but remember, just because Reynolds says something is at his home address does not mean that it is, in fact, at his home address) Reynolds doesn't say why he paid her, though the law requires "an itemized statement of every disbursement exceeding $20 in amount or value. together with the name of the person or business to whom the disbursement was made, and the date and the specific purpose for which the disbursement was made."

Why doesn't Reynolds list individual contributions made by book donors and dealers for the book sale fundraiser he held? Reynolds valued the books, which he listed as "Books accepted on consignment and some donated books for sale" at $2,809. Interestingly, he listed the name of the donor as "Used Book Sale," which seems a tad incomplete to me. His finance report also includes expenditures of $521.25 and $701.04 to two individuals -- Brian Nowack and Craig Temple, respectively -- for "payment for books taken on consignment."